Hinds County Board of Supervisors v. Lilly M. Abnie
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-IA-00185-SCT
HINDS COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK
v.
LILLY M. ABNIE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
01/06/2005
HON. TOMIE T. GREEN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
E. CHARLENE STIMLEY PRIESTER
STEPHEN W. MULLINS
CIVIL - OTHER
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 07/27/2006
EN BANC.
RANDOLPH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On October 27, 2000, the Hinds County Circuit Court issued an Order regarding the
payment of filing fees,
which included
the following, “each individual plaintiff in a
consolidated action must pay a filing fee the same as any other plaintiff in any other action.
Failure to pay a filing fee in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of the
complaint of a non-paying plaintiff.”
¶2.
In 2002, 710 plaintiffs, Lilly M. Abnie, et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a
consolidated action against Morton International, Inc., et al., in the Hinds County Circuit Court
(“Circuit Court”).1 Pursuant to a directive by the Hinds County Circuit Clerk (“Circuit Clerk”),
each individual plaintiff was required to pay a $75.00 filing fee, totaling $53,250.00. Plaintiffs
were also assessed administrative costs in the amount $14,200.00. Thus, a total of $67,450.00
was paid to the Circuit Clerk.
¶3.
After removal to and remand by the United States District Court, Southern District of
Mississippi, a Motion to Transfer Venue to Jackson County was granted and filed on March
10, 2004. As a result of the transfer, Plaintiffs were required to pay an additional $41,325.00
in filing fees to the Jackson County Circuit Clerk, albeit with assurance they would be
reimbursed by the Jackson County Circuit Clerk when the filing fees from Hinds County were
transferred.
¶4.
In a separate proceeding, this Court issued an Order upon petition of the judges of the
Fifth Circuit Court District2 to review and approve new local rules, as proposed. On September
4, 2003, in an en banc Order, this Court approved the local rules as proposed by the Fifth
Circuit District’s judges, with the exception of proposed rule 4. Rule 4, if approved, would
have authorized the Fifth Circuit District’s circuit clerks to charge a separate filing fee to each
plaintiff in a case. This Court held the Legislature established the statutory fees allowed to be
charged by clerks, and “no more.”
1
Miss. Code Ann. Section 25-7-1 and Section 25-7-13.
The Seventh Circuit Court District is made up of Hinds County.
2
The Fifth Circuit Court District is made up of the following counties: Grenada, Carroll,
Montgomery, Attala, Webster, Choctaw and Winston.
2
Miss. Code Ann. Sect. 25-7-13 provides a filing fee for “docketing, filing, marking and
registering each complaint, petition and indictment,” and mandates that “the fee set forth in this
paragraph shall be the total fee for all services performed by the clerk up to and including entry
of judgment with respect to each complaint, petition or indictment.” 3
¶5.
On June 1, 2004, the Hinds County Circuit Court referenced this Court’s September
4, 2003 Order, re: Fifth Circuit Court District local rules in its findings and ordered, “the
filing fees of $67,450, less statutorily permitted administrative fees, if any, paid to the office
of the Hinds County Circuit Clerk shall be transferred to the Circuit Court of Jackson County
as soon as practicable.”
The Circuit Court further ordered that “to the extent that the filing
fees of $67,450 comprised excess fees that were paid into the Hinds County General Fund at
the end of 2002, the Circuit Clerk of Hinds County and the Hinds County Board of Supervisors
shall forthwith transfer filing fees paid in the herein case to the office of the Jackson County
Circuit Clerk, as soon as practicable.”4
¶6.
Plaintiffs furnished a copy of the transferring Plaintiffs’ filing fees Order to the Circuit
Clerk and the Hinds County Board of Supervisors (“Board”). Neither the Board, nor the Circuit
Clerk complied with the Order. Twenty-one days later, the plaintiffs sent a second demand to
the Board and the Circuit Clerk seeking compliance with the Order and transfer of the money.
3
Miss. Code Ann. Sect. 25-7-13(1)(a) sets the filing fee at $75.00 for each complaint,
petition and indictment.
4
As these proceedings were ongoing, the judges of the Seventh Circuit Court District
issued an Order Rescinding the Seventh Circuit Court’s Order of October 27, 2000, Requiring
Filing Fees of Each Plaintiff in a Multiple or Consolidated Complaint. The Order of July 28,
2004, provided that the October 27, 2000, Order should be rescinded due to this Court’s
September 4, 2003, Order.
3
When the Board and the Circuit Clerk failed to comply with the order, the plaintiffs filed a
Motion to Show Cause and for Contempt.
¶7.
The Board filed their Defenses and Response to Motion to Show Cause and for
Contempt, as well as a Motion to Set Aside and/or to Clarify Order Transferring Plaintiffs’
Filing Fee to the Transferee Circuit Clerk of Jackson County, Mississippi. The Board raised,
inter alia, the following issues: (1) they were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard
regarding the Order Transferring Plaintiffs’ Filing Fees; (2) any and all filing fees collected
were mandated by Order of the Circuit Court judges; (3) Hinds County processes many cases
in which multiple filing fees were collected and an Order to transfer funds in this case would
expose Hinds County to tremendous potential liability; (4) the Circuit Court had no
jurisdiction over the parties as the case had been transferred to Jackson County; and (5) it is
improper to transfer an entire filing fee after the filing of the case. The Board claimed there
were over thirty entries and matters handled by the Circuit Clerk and the Order Transferring
Plaintiffs’ Filing Fees did not provide any consideration for the work performed by the Clerk.
¶8.
The Motion to Set Aside was denied. In its Order denying the Motion to Set Aside, the
Circuit Court ordered the Circuit Clerk and the Board to refund filing fees in the amount of
$53,250.00 5 to counsel for the plaintiffs by December 31, 2004.
¶9.
On January 6, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an Order which lifted a stay and required
the refund of the filing fees to counsel for Plaintiffs. The Order of January 6, 2005, provided,
“the Circuit Clerk and the Hinds County Board of Supervisors shall refund to [Abnie’s attorney]
the total sum of $53,250.00 on or before January 28, 2005. Failure to make said refund
5
The Order failed to reference the $14,200 administrative cost assessment.
4
payment as ordered will amount to contempt of court and result in sanctions of $50.00 per day
until said $53,250.00 is paid in full or the assessment of 8% interest on the amount to be
refunded beginning January 29, 2005.”
¶10.
The Board and the Circuit Clerk filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order Transferring
Plaintiffs’ Filing Fees and the final Order Requiring the Refund of Filing Fees. The Board and
the Circuit Clerk further filed a Motion to Stay Order Requiring Refund of Filing Fees,
Contempt Ruling, and Sanctions pending the outcome of their appeal. This Motion to Stay was
granted by the Circuit Court and was construed by the Hinds County Circuit Court as a request
for interlocutory appeal, which was also granted.
The Court then granted permission for this
interlocutory appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5.
ISSUES
¶11.
The Plaintiffs assert the Circuit Court Order Of October 27, 2000, was contrary to state
law, specifically Miss. Code Ann. Section 25-7-1 and Section 25-7-13, and “the Clerk should
not be able to obtain fees contrary to state law....”
Plaintiffs further argue they were
overcharged for the filing of a single complaint. Additionally, they should not have been
required to pay a second filing fee upon transfer of the action to Jackson County, stating in
their brief, “the real issue at hand is that contrary to state law, Appellees were required to pay
two filing fees . . . .”
Plaintiffs present the following issue for appeal: Whether they are
entitled to a refund for the overpayment of filing fees.
¶12.
The Board and the Circuit Clerk argue the Circuit Court’s Order requiring a refund of
filing fees was issued in response to this Court’s 2003 En Banc Order, which prohibited the
Fifth Circuit District’s clerks from charging multiple filing fees. The Board and the Circuit
5
Clerk argue this Court’s 2003 Order should not apply to them, as the case sub judice was filed
approximately two years before this Court issued the Order. Although the Board and the
Circuit Clerk raised numerous issues in the lower court, supra, they present the following as
their sole issue for appeal: Whether or not equity requires the ruling of this Court in its 2003
Order to be applied prospectively.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶13.
The matter sub judice is an interlocutory appeal from an Order Requiring the Refund
of Filing Fees issued by a Hinds County Circuit Court judge. This appeal was brought pursuant
to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a).
“A circuit judge sitting without a jury is
accorded the same deference with regard to his findings as a chancellor and his findings are
safe on appeal where they are supported by substantial, credible and reasonable evidence.” City
of Clinton v. Smith, 861 So.2d 323, 326 (Miss. 2003) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
I.
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a refund for the overpayment of filing fees
¶14.
As succinctly stated by this Court’s Order of September 4, 2003, the Legislature
established the statutory fees allowed to be charged by clerks, and “no more.” In the matter
sub judice, the Circuit Clerk was not at liberty to assess and collect administrative costs and
separate filing fees for each plaintiff, as it was contrary to state law, specifically Miss. Code
Ann. Section 25-7-1 and Section 25-7-13. Plaintiffs were improperly and impermissibly
required to pay filing fees and administrative costs in excess of the statutorily authorized
amount.
6
¶15.
It is the duty of this Court to abide by the intent of the Legislature, and the Legislature
has spoken to this issue in Miss. Code Ann. Sects. 25-7-1 and 25- 7-13.This Court, in its 2003
Order, did not change or modify the existing law, which had long been established by the
Legislature. The 2003 Order and today’s ruling are consistent in their application and
enforcement of the right of the Legislature to establish fees for the circuit clerks of this state.
Accordingly, the request of the Board to apply this Order prospectively is denied.
CONCLUSION
¶16.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of all filing fees and administrative
costs in excess of the statutorily established amounts.
We affirm the portion of the Circuit
Court’s Order requiring a refund of the filing fees. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶17.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON AND
DICKINSON, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
